The Fluoride Experiment

How the Sugar Industry Used Fluoridation as a Smokescreen

For decades, Americans have been told that adding fluoride to our drinking water prevents tooth decay. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention even framed fluoridation as one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century. But what if there’s another side to the story—one that involves corporate money, manipulated science, and a policy that may be doing more harm than good?

Fluoridation’s Forgotten Backstory

In the 1940s, the sugar industry faced a crisis. Research was mounting that sugar—not a lack of fluoride—was driving the epidemic of tooth decay. Reducing sugar consumption would have been the obvious solution, but that was unthinkable for an industry built on sales. So industry leaders pulled off a sleight of hand worthy of Big Tobacco. Instead of addressing sugar, they funded conferences and research that promoted fluoridation as the magic bullet.

By shifting attention from sugar to fluoridation, the industry protected its profits while recasting itself as a public health ally. Newly uncovered documents, analyzed by researcher Chris Neurath, reveal how far this strategy went. Fluoridation, once presented as a neutral scientific discovery, was in fact pushed forward with heavy industry involvement. Gerald Cox, the chemist who first proposed adding fluoride to drinking water worked with funding from the Sugar Research Institute. Protecting kids’ teeth was the public rationale. Protecting sugar sales was the hidden goal.

The Cracks in the Consensus

That history alone should give us pause. But there is also new science to consider. The benefits of drinking fluoridated water appear smaller than once claimed, while the risks—especially to the developing brain—are becoming harder to ignore. Recent prospective studies from Mexico, Canada, and Bangladesh have linked prenatal fluoride exposure to lower IQ in children. In 2025, the U.S. National Toxicology Program concluded that across dozens of studies, higher fluoride exposure was associated with reduced IQ scores in children.

Anyone who claims the evidence is settled, or that fluoridation is beyond question, simply hasn’t done their homework—or is misleading the public.

Neurath’s new article is a bombshell. It reveals how the sugar industry bankrolled research and conferences that convinced dentists, physicians, and public health officials that fluoridation was not only safe but essential. This deliberate manipulation of science and policy raises a stark question: if fluoridation began as a smoke screen to protect sugar, how much of our confidence in it rests on solid science?

Two Stories, One Timeline

Fluoridation is contentious, and opinions run strong. My goal in this series is not to tell you what to think but to give you access to the facts so you can make up your own mind—or at least ask sharper questions.

The first installment is a timeline tracing two parallel stories: the evolving science of fluoride and the sugar industry’s role in shaping the science of fluoridation. In the coming months, I’ll add commentary on what this evidence means for dentists, physicians, public health officials, and parents. For now, I’ll let the facts speak.